Q: You've written about evidentiary practice as a kind of slow work. What does that mean in operational terms?
It means that the things that matter most in evidentiary work are difficult to do at speed. Documenting provenance well takes longer than documenting it badly. Verification chains take longer than not having them. Recording the doubt that responsible practice surfaces takes more space than suppressing it. The temptation is always to compress these things. The discipline is to resist that temptation.
Q: You've also emphasised the importance of recorded doubt. Why?
Because evidence work that doesn't record its own limits invites overreach. The conclusions an investigation reaches are only as good as the doubts that have been openly engaged in reaching them. Doubt that's been buried because it's inconvenient becomes a liability later, when the buried doubt resurfaces and the work has to be defended.
Q: What does the field still have to learn?
More than I can name. The honest answer is that evidentiary practice in transitional contexts is still finding its method. The work we're doing at the Institute is a contribution to a longer conversation. The frameworks we propose are working frameworks. They will be revised.